Just as it looked like the iPod-related class action suit against Apple was getting interesting, Eddy Cue arguing that competing music stores had effectively hacked the iPod, it now seems the case is in danger of collapsing.
Apple’s lawyers have written to the judge to say there is no evidence that either of the two plaintiffs owned iPods during the time affected by Apple’s action to remove non-iTunes songs from iPods …
The NYT reports that Apple had checked the serial numbers of the iPods owned by the plaintiffs and determined that both were purchased after the period affected by the class action.
The class action seeks damages for iPods bought from September 2006 to March 2009. Apple said it checked the serial number of Ms. Rosen’s iPod Touch and found that it was bought in July 2009, months after the class period ended […]
Apple said it verified that an iPod Touch was purchased by Ms. Tucker in August 2010, also outside the class period.
Both plaintiffs claim they purchased other iPods within the qualifying dates, but Apple has been unable to find any record of these models. The company’s lawyers have asked for proof of purchase to be produced.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said that she would research the matter herself, but the case could be halted – temporarily or permanently – if the issue couldn’t be resolved.
“I am concerned that I don’t have a plaintiff,” she said. “That’s a problem.”
Judge Rogers asked attorneys to promptly suggest a next move, telling them that she was not interested in waiting.
The court had earlier heard video-taped testimony from Steve Jobs, with a snarky comment about rival music store Real Networks, asking “Do they still exist?”
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
IF this is, in fact, true – the lawyers representing the plaintiffs must be the same lawyers that represented Samesung in their suit against Apple several years ago. ;)
This could turn out to be a real comedy of errors – which, it seems, is common when fighting Apple in court.
Is that even relevant for class action lawyers? They get paid either way… might even mean a brand new trial in a couple of years when they dig up more plaintiffs.
Without representative plaintiffs, the judge could dismiss the case altogether. She doesn’t seem disposed to wait around too long …
Class action lawyers typically (i.e., in almost all cases) do not get paid unless/until there is a settlement or verdict award when they take their cut. So the case being dismissed for lack of a representative/viable plaintiff is a big deal.
You mean that time when Samsung sued Apple but put a comma in the name: Apple, Inc. instead of Apple Inc.? That was hilarious! Gotta love these Apple lawyers, they have a real sense of humour. Their webmaster as well: when told Apple should put an apology on their website it was only viewable when scrolling down when the page already had hit the bottom.
Considering how many tens of millions of dollars these lawyers stand to make I am sure some will be found or fabricated.
That has always been my problem with class action lawsuits. The lawyers make tens of millions of dollars and the “class” might get a check for tens of dollars.
I had a first-gen ipod in 2002. If this moves forward like most class-actions, I look forward to the $17 coupon toward the purchase of my next ipod.